I think Obama does represent change and I will support him, obviously. Although I talk a fairly big game about being far left, I'm actually more moderate than most people know and I hate the polarization we have in this country and on these boards because anyone with any sense knows the two parties have to work together. Polarization doesn't do this country any good, and it's the stuff of frighteningly simple black-and-white minds, I think, that have to reduce debates to two sides, like good and evil. (Like George Dubya Bush does.)

That being said, any candidate would represent change after the Bush administration. Even McCain, despite the fact that the Obama camp likes to paint him as the third Bush administration. Although I stand to the left of Senator McCain, I respect him a great deal.

I read a lot. I mean news magazines, Newspapers. Books. Some blogs. But mostly longer stuff. Blogs and electronic news are mostly just quick news bytes and headlines. That being said, objectively speaking and based on a long career in communications and speechwriting before I danced off to medical school, Obama's message of change is mighty vague right now, and I've been looking for a long time for specifics. It needs some meat and some definition. Does anyone else who supports Obama feel the same way? "Change you can believe in" to me is starting to make me think about the term "faith" for some reason. Like I'm being asked to take it on faith. I've always been one to take things on facts more than on faith.

I need some more in-depth definition of exactly how Obama plans to change things. That's when I'll feel more comfortable buying what he's selling. I'm still buying it, though. Make no mistake about that. If for no other reason than these two simple words: Supreme Court.

As far as pointing the finger 8 years back at the Clinton administration for the problems we're seeing now, that just makes me laugh hysterically. Anyone with eyes and a brain can read history and has seen the deficit go up, foreign policy and respect from the world go down, homeland security and, especially early on, defense policy, be mismanaged, freedoms and privacy be infringed, and ire in the Middle East be stirred up to levels that we'll never recover from. Seriously. That crap happened under Bush and no one else. Far more than what's listed here, too, by the way. If you don't believe that his foreign policy, by the way, has been appalling, you might want to educate yourself on what both Secretary of State Powell and Rice have worked in complete futility to try to do and how impossible it was--and still is, in Condi's case--to try to accomplish anything.